Felicity

I do not have a "'tude." If you read a tad bit of assertiveness into the last posts--yes, there was some. As I pointed out in the opening, I did not like how you suggested there was some "reason" for the suggested thread title. Do you care to answer what exactly you meant by "reveals much"? When your second post begins in such a way, it could be interpreted as an attempt to shift the discussion from the topic itself to the debator. This is especially so in the absence of your offering any substantive counter argument. There really was no reason for you to even say such a thing--it's not pertinent to the debate.

If I wanted to be picky...I could take issue with your "warning" me in the last sentence of the post in question, do not accuse me of something that you are in fact doing in your posts--i.e. "having a 'tude." Anyway--I choose not to make an issue of it, and in no way could anything I wrote be construed as "ridicule" so please stop with the insulting characterizations and innuendos.

Further--in a debate, it is customary to offer counter arguments and valid sources. Merely offering opinion, and citing "friends who are scholors" doesn't work. That's why I asked for "substantive evidence." Since this third post of yours now is accusing me of "sarcasm" and characterizing my posts as "unbecoming of a religious debate," I believe that what is going on here is you are attempting to shift the discussion from the debate to the debator. If that's not the case--stop talking about me, and talk about the topic.

I eagerly await discussion of the topic....

niftydrifty

Ok, I'm back. before we continue, I realize I may be making assumptions about what you mean by "literal," and "literally."

Can you define what you mean by these terms when you speak about the eucharist?

__________________

Felicity

When I say the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is LITERALLY present in the Eucharist. I mean it's his flesh--it's NOT symbolically his flesh--it IS his flesh. There are symbolic associations to the liturgy, but the thing that was bread and wine is NO LONGER bread and wine after consecration, but it still appears physically bread and wine, yet it is literally Jesus' Body and Blood.

Further, the disciples in John 6 who heard Jesus say that His Flesh is True Food--understood him literally. To eat someone's flesh was to ridicule and debase if was meant symbolically--the disciples knew he was not speaking symbolically or metaphorically--they KNEW he was saying they would have to EAT HIM--that is why many left. WE know Jesus meant it literally because Jesus let them leave without clarification. Jesus would not allow a silly misunderstanding to confuse someone to the point that they would turn away from him--Jesus explained errors in understanding when it caused people to question his divinity.

I mean literally in terms of the disciples heard Jesus words and took them in the DENOTATIVE sense.

Felicity

PS--Glad to see you back!

niftydrifty

It is really, literally, His flesh? the same molecules that inhabited Christ's flesh are now present in the bread that you eat?

ps. thanks!

__________________

Felicity

Yes....REALLY LITERALLY his Flesh....The ESSENCE--the SUBSTANCE of Jesus is there in the totality of his nature--body, blood, soul, and divinity, but the "accidents" --the external appearences of the bread and wine-- remain. So, if you look at the consecrated host/cup--it smells, tastes, appears....all as if it were breadand wine--but because I believe the words of Christ when he says "This IS my body--this IS my blood"--I believe He is substantually present in the Eucharist.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ.

Felicity

Hey nifty....

I got your PM...I understand you're busy, but.... ....don't fergit, 'kay?

niftydrifty

well, I just haven't had any long patches of time with which to give this topic the kind of attention I've wanted to. but here goes anyway.

I have a Greek dictionary where the words are in Greek characters. I have been meaning to do some research, but as you can imagine, with Greek characters, it is pretty slow going for me. and no, I haven't asked anyone what any words mean. I'll ask you. would you mind explaining what is meant by the word trogo, which you brought up? after all, this is a debate and it seems to me this is the only thing you have making your case.

reason being, I've heard you explain how church fathers' writings (in English) containing words such as "true" and "real" and how they undeniably must be referring to literal flesh. but in explaining how it is so, you without exception engage in a highwire acrobat act using different words yourself. if it where so apparent and obvious, it wouldn't be necessary for you to claim that so-and-so meant "literal" when every translation you paste says "true" or "real." for believers, spirituality is true and real.

to insist or point out that the Roman Catholic Church is the one church and that it goes back as long as it does is a non argument, irrelevant to the topic. transubtantiation is just another false teaching, to go along with a very long history of false doctrines unsupported by scripture, ... including the use of Latin as the language of prayer and worship, the papacy and papal infallibility, worship of relics, celibacy, the inquisition, etc.

aside from all this word business, comes the clincher: what evidence, aside from anyone's word that it does, do you have that the bread or the wafers actually is converted via transubstantiation into the body or the substance or the essence of Christ?

__________________

Felicity

Perhaps in the delay of response, you forget I addressed it in the post in which I used the word and cited a source? Go back and look.

Here's another-- Trogo - Greek Lexicon


What re you referring to and why the derisive tone?

As in everything, language is merely a symbolic tool to express reality. The Biblical meaning of EAT is clear via the word used to describe the "eating"--it is to gnaw--a physical reality is described--NOT a spiritual reality.

Are you attempting to muddy the water by deflecting to other items with which you take issue? The topic is the "real" presence of which we have determined I mean a PHYSICAL reality. This is a poor debate maneuver. If you don't want to debate the issue, that's fine. I've waited this long and I am confident in my position. I do not intend to be argumentative or lured into a pisssing match--The facts are the facts and I am well versed on this topic.

Are you suggesting the words of Jesus Christ aren't enough for a Christian to be convinced? What can I do with that admission?

Felicity

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C006.htm#V50

Searching for trwgwn...
John 06:54
John 06:56
John 06:57
John 06:58
John 13:18

http://www.greekbible.com/index.php